Public Judgments of Senate and House Candidates

Abstract

This article employees the responses to the open-ended likes/dislikes questions of the 1988 National Election Study and Senate Election Study to explore the cognitions that citizens have of political candidates running for office. A comparison is made of the criteria people use when evaluating Senate, House, and presidential candidates. The results demonstrate that the cognitive and evaluative judgments of Senate and House candidates are based on very different criteria. Judgments of Senate candidates focus more on issues, as well as candidate competence and integrity. Evaluations of House contenders, on the other hand, emphasize personal appeal and responsiveness to the constituency. These results hold important implications regarding the distinction between senate and house elections.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.